On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 23:06 +0000, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 09/01/2023 20:17, Snusmumriken wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 08:21 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > You seem unwilling to understand that defining a way to refer to > > > ids > > > will cause social pressure not to change ids, > > Is there actually evidence that would corroborate this claim? > > There have definitely been complaints to the DWG when people > "resurrect" > old long-deleted nodes, or exhibit "unusual mapping behaviour" such > as > never deleting any nodes, and always re-using them in some other > feature. There have also been complaints about changes to objects > that > people consider "special" such as > https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/1 > and, er, > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/69#map=17/48.06733/12.86258 .
Right, I guess one could say that when it comes to retaining existing osm ids there is bad practice and good practice, and a grey area. Any proof or indications that creating a URI scheme would increase the bad practice? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
